Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
See also:

How to smear a hero « Nicholas John Mead

Anna Ardin worked as a trainee (praktikant) under the foreign office at several locations in Sweden and abroad, two of them of particular interest.

In 2004 at the defense unit at the swedish embassy in Washington DC organizing conferences and having a partial assignment to the Swedish military intelligence MUST.

In 2005 AA worked with civil crisis management at the foreign office unit for European security policy in Stockholm.

http://resources.statsvet.uu.se/repository/1/polmag/PraktikutvVT05_del2.PDF

She has agitated against Castro, and is involved in an extremist Christian organisation.

Not quite the typical hippy leftist.

She also arranged Assange's visit. And just happened to have links to Expressen, having written for it in the past.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 07:21:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Careful!

How to smear a hero « Nicholas John Mead

I made a mistake. It is not Anna Ardin that worked at the two assignments in Washington DC and Stockholm.

To repeat: It was not Anna Ardin that worked at the two assignments in Washington DC and Stockholm.



"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 08:12:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good catch.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 08:22:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Based on the inaccuracies, "How to Smear Anna Ardin" might've been a better headline. Anyway, this jumping to conclusions (How does Mead know, now, that the allegations are a smear?) is entirely unecessary and may backfire to the detriment of the left and the Wikileaks organization.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 12:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sure the Left, Assange and Wikileaks will be taking your sincere concern for their welfare under advisement.

But that blog does at least have some facts posted on it, which is more than this thread had originally.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 12:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Inaccurate allegations were there too, mixed with the stuff you feel are facts. Credibility matters. This diary was and is about the 'non-factness' of the situation involving Assange. So why jump to conclusions? Especially, why write a diary calling the whole thing a smear? You're confident of that, now? How does that help 'the left' or Wikileaks (which is not the same thing as Assange: it's important to remind people of that, which is a fact)?

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 12:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm confident you're trying - in an entertainingly ham-fisted and downright transparent way - to smear Assange and blow clouds of fud around the issue.

I'm confident of that because anyone here who can read - which most of us can, it seems - can see that you've been taking prosecution and media comments at face value and giving them the benefit of the doubt at every point, while not offering the same courtesy to Assange himself.

Who is surely guilty of rape - no, sexual molestation, no, er, molestation, no, make that non-specific but definitely non-sexual harrassment.

According to the prosecutor's office. And the very reputable newspaper that ran the story, when a former employee mentioned it to them in passing.

You're right about one thing - if it's a smear job, it's a fiasco.

Perhaps someone should start a lol-spooks site? I can haz tradecraft n meeja skillz?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 01:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your comment is wrong, and just makes me sad. Are you sure being caught out on two lies about Anna Adlin shouldn't have shaken your confidence in that "I'm sure it's a smear" article you quote from? No, you're more confident than ever. Sad.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 03:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What would have shaken my confidence would have been a pattern of substantive investigation or sourced evidence on your part.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 09:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm confident you're trying - in an entertainingly ham-fisted and downright transparent way - to smear Assange and blow clouds of fud around the issue.

ET contributors enjoy the presumption of good faith, until they've demonstrated the contrary. And while I disagree with some of the particulars, fairleft's line of reasoning in this thread is not absurd. Stubborn, perhaps, but stubbornness in pursuing a line of argument does not show bad faith as long as the data remains open to interpretation. Which it does as long as we're relying on press clippings.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 07:05:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't consider unambiguous presumption of guilt based on tabloid tittle-tattle, innuendo, run-arounds, gratuitous repetition, misdirection, and deliberate attempts to play down and ignore real evidence to be good faith. Not when the charge is this serious.

Good faith would be 'Well - this is dramatic, but let's wait and see how it plays out.'

And now it's clear that there is no rape case, there was no rape case, and that any case that remains is so ambiguous and poorly defined that not even the prosecutor is sure what exactly Assange is supposed to have done.

Admittedly, this may change. But with what's known today, it's a fair guess that it's not looking likely.

But still - I'm curious why Fairleft followed through this diary through with such persistence.

What was the point? Why keep repeating 'They say there's no smoke without fire...' over and over?

I don't think it persuaded anyone that Assange is a rapist or pervert, or that Wikileaks is a bad thing, or that the war in Afghanistan is a good thing.

I don't even think it convinced anyone that Assange might be a rapist, given the chance.

I'm more perplexed by the energy expended on a diary with no clear point to it - beyond a nonsensical one - than about the details.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 09:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure where you get this presumption of guilt in fairleft's writings here. I don't get that vibe at all - I get a vibe of presumption of good faith on part of the witnesses. Which, perhaps due to an excess of zeal, occasionally seems to slide over into a presumption of good faith on part of the people who report what the witnesses say.

There's a fine line in dealing with this sort of cases: On the one hand, the accused and the witnesses enjoy the presumption of innocence and good faith (resp.). On the other hand, the police and the press do not. How far one should go in digging into witnesses' background in pursuit of deconstructing the official police and press line is at least partly a matter of personal taste.

Now, in my personal opinion, the fact that one of the witnesses went to the press herself (and to Expressen of all places) makes her a perfectly valid target for enquiry. But reasonable people can disagree on that point, particularly given the hearsay/fact ratio of the information we have on everyone involved at this point.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 26th, 2010 at 07:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My evil side is hugely enjoying the whole spectacle: it seems contrived expressly to drive the anarchistic left insane. On one hand, accusation of sexual impropriety, which have to be taken very seriously, of course, on the other it's all awfully convenient for a lot of very powerful people. <heads explode>
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 26th, 2010 at 07:13:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, this fairleft, highly suspicious writing a diary that says we should withhold judgment on all involved in this mess, and shy away from conspiracy generation unless there's real evidence for that.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Thu Aug 26th, 2010 at 03:24:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:

She has agitated against Castro, and is involved in an extremist Christian organisation.

Not quite the typical hippy leftist.

No, but a fairly typical soc-dem. Agitating against Castro is standard to demonstrate that you are not a commie. And I suppose that the extremist christian organisation would be Broderskapsrörelsen? It is in effect the organisation of Christian soc-dems, and fairly harmless.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Aug 30th, 2010 at 10:39:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series